https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111528
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits <cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org> --- The releases/gcc-12 branch has been updated by Richard Sandiford <rsand...@gcc.gnu.org>: https://gcc.gnu.org/g:6a527b809f99d3f05df16f792b2de6b32fa0d579 commit r12-9930-g6a527b809f99d3f05df16f792b2de6b32fa0d579 Author: Richard Sandiford <richard.sandif...@arm.com> Date: Thu Oct 19 10:49:19 2023 +0100 lra: Avoid unfolded plus-0 While backporting another patch to an earlier release, I hit a situation in which lra_eliminate_regs_1 would eliminate an address to: (plus (reg:P R) (const_int 0)) This address compared not-equal to plain: (reg:P R) which caused an ICE in a later peephole2. (The ICE showed up in gfortran.fortran-torture/compile/pr80464.f90 on the branch but seems to be latent on trunk.) These unfolded PLUSes shouldn't occur in the insn stream, and later code in the same function tried to avoid them. gcc/ PR target/111528 * lra-eliminations.cc (lra_eliminate_regs_1): Use simplify_gen_binary rather than gen_rtx_PLUS. (cherry picked from commit 10d59b802a7db9ae908291fb20627c1493cfa26c)
